WHAT’S THE POINT?
The homeless. A source of social fire greater than raising taxes. Everyone has an opinion on them. They live in our parks, soil our alleys, terrorize our tourists, annoyingly pest our residents and get our City Council elected.
I have previously written on the Constitutional rights of the homeless. In short, they have just as much right to be in the parks as a tax-paying, clean-shaven, sweet-smelling resident of the city. That does not, however, mean that they can’t be asked to abide by the same laws and social standards as the rest of us.
Our Constitution provides all citizens, natural born or naturalized, the same rights — those of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitution we have the following freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and Freedom to Express ourselves religiously, among others. These rights are not absolute, however.
Many social engineers in our community would like the homeless to have an absolute right to live in Santa Monica. But that would be an inaccurate assessment of one’s Constitutional rights. We have the right to live some place, so long as we adhere to the laws of that location. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that provides me or anyone else with the Constitutional right to live in Santa Monica free of responsibilities like rent and homeownership.
Anyone has the right to live in Santa Monica so long as they pay the rent on time. In much the same way the homeless have the right to occupy public spaces, so long as they pay their rent, which in their case is complying with the laws against littering, defecating in public, being drunk in public, not assaulting others for money and not trespassing on private property.
I’m sick and tired of having the homeless assault me for money in their drunken/crazed/“pitiful me” stupor, yell at me for not giving them money, assault our tourists, invade our parks and destroy the tranquil life that some of us would like to have while living here.
I was recently driving by Virginia Avenue Park, which is slated to open in November. The passenger I was driving with asked me how quickly I thought the homeless would ruin the park. I said that hopefully with the police substation, the park would not become a homeless encampment — the way that other parks such as Palisades Park, Douglas Park, Christine Emerson Reed Park and others have become.
Hopefully, the police department will recognize that an increase in their surveillance at this substation is necessary. It is wanted by the residents, and will have a prophylactic effect and will reduce the criminal behavior, drug use, open consumption of alcohol and terrorism of the neighborhood.
I understand the City Council feels its hands are tied. Given the multiple lawsuits that the city has suffered, and prosecuted pointlessly, I certainly understand why they are gun shy to take any action that would actually benefit the residents. But perhaps the chief of police can see his way through to create a more visible presence, one that helps the neighborhood and prevents the calcification of criminals in a new facility.
The heated arguments between homeless activists and law-and-order activists frequently confuse the meaning of “rights” with “entitlements.” The homeless activists would have the general public believe that the homeless population is entitled by birth in America, to occupy, in whatever way they choose, public lands. The law-and-order activists would have the general public believe that the homeless have no right to be on public land because they are assaulting people and causing disturbances.
Neither side is correct. The homeless have the right to be on public property so long as they comply with the local laws. Just like the rest of us.
I just want to see the chief of police make sure that the homeless comply with local laws, as effectively as he makes sure I put change in my parking meter, move my car on street-cleaning day and wear my seat belt.
It would warm my heart if the fire department was as vigilant in making sure that the homeless were sleeping under well-protected roofs as they are about making sure that the fire extinguisher in my office is refilled on annual basis, at a cost of $75.
I don’t hate the homeless, I just want them to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Or, at least have the City Council act like they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. (David Pisarra is a business development lawyer and partner in the Santa Monica law firm of Pisarra & Grist. He 310-664-9969 or by e-mail at)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 3, 2005. Read the original PDF.